^.'Lo.'ol_ 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented   h^ro"  7H7B .  VK  CAr\\  <2j  V  O  ,^  -T) . 


Division 
Section  ■ 


11 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 


AN  ADDRESS 


REV.  ROBERT   F.  SAMPLE,  D.D. 


NEW  YORK 


THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 


The  Higher  Criticism  is  the  scientific  method  of  in- 
vestigation appHed  to  the  Bible,  deahng  with  its 
language  and  contents.  It  inquires  concerning  the 
authorship  of  the  several  books,  the  age  in  which  they 
were  written,  their  genuineness  and  authority.  Its 
conclusions  as  to  authorship  and  age  rest  on  the  gen- 
eral style  of  the  books,  and  on  the  use  of  terms  which 
are  supposed  to  mark  the  several  stages  of  Biblical 
literature.     This  is  the  question  of  authenticity. 

Then  the  truthfulness,  or  its  opposite,  of  the  several 
parts  of  the  Sacred  Canon,  is  determined  by  their 
historical  accuracy,  and  this  is  ascertained  l.^}-  a  com- 
parison with  cotemporary  history,  by  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  annals,  the  supposed  development  of 
literature  and  arts  and  religion,  thus  determining 
whether  the  Bible  record  is  consistent  with  this  intel- 
lectual and  moral  evolution.  In  other  words  it  is  the 
application  of  scientific  methods  to  all  the  questions 
involved. 

Take  a  rapid   survey  of  the  results  of  the  Higher 


Criticism  as  related  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. We  are  informed  that  the  Hexateuch  is  a 
composite  work,  which  is  referred  to  many  sources. 
The  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  with 
their  multiplicity  of  errors,  belong  to  the  same  cate- 
gory. Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  not  written  by  the 
men  whose  names  are  affixed  to  them,  but  by  un- 
known and  later  authors.  Most  of  the  Psalms  are 
post-exilic,  but  it  is  not  clearly  established  that  David 
wrote  none  of  them.  Solomon  did  not  write  the 
Song  of  Songs.  He  is  not  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes, 
and  wrote  only  a  few  of  the  Proverbs.  The  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  was  written  by  many  authors,  or  it  was  di- 
vided between  its  reputed  author  and  a  Deutero- 
Isaiah  who  flourished  after  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
Job,  Ruth,  Esther,  and  Daniel  are  sacred  romances, 
carrying  ethical  blemishes,  for  which  the  only  apology 
is  that  of  historical  errancy.  The  authenticity  of 
Zechariah  and  Micah  is  rejected,  each  of  them  being 
referred  to  a  dual  authorship.  Ezekiel  is  the  author 
of  the  prosaic  book  which  bears  his  name.  The  au- 
thenticity of  nine  of  the  so-called  minor  prophecies  is 
accepted.  The  same  criticism  has  traversed  the  New 
Testament,  and  has  broken  down  all  along  the  line. 

GENESIS  OF  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  exact  genesis  of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  not 
definitely  settled.  Some  refer  it  to  Dupin,  a  Profes- 
sor of  the  College  of  France,  an  expert  in  Ecclesiasti- 


cal  history  and  literature,  who  has  successors  on  both 
sides  the  EngUsh  Channel.  Spinoza  of  Amsterdam, 
cotemporary  of  Du  Pin,  is  claimed  by  others  as  its 
author,  although  he  was  by  no  means  a  specialist,  but 
swept  a  wide  field  of  inquiry,  and  by  his  destructive 
system  came  under  the  ban  of  the  Church.  Berkley, 
the  English  Critic,  eliminated  some  of  the  most  ob- 
jectionable features  of  Spinoza's  system,  and  as  a  dis- 
ciple of  Du  Pin,  falls  in  the  line  of  orderly  succession. 

Astruc  introduced  this  criticism  in  the  last  century. 
He  dreaded  the  supernaturalism  of  the  Bible,  and  en- 
deavored to  believe  it  taught  natural  religion  only. 
He  felt  that  if  the  Bible  were  from  God,  and  therefore 
true,  he  could  not  face  death  with  calmness,  nor  car- 
ry a  gleam  of  hope  through  it.  This  man,  whose  vices 
outranked  his  learning,  originated  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Jehovist  and  the  Elohist  in  the  Scripture, 
and  called  attention  to  the  supposed  anachronisms 
and  interpolations  and  numerous  errors  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis.  His  name  might  properly  designate  that 
criticism  which,  with  much  modification,  has  con- 
tinued until  the  present. 

Eichhorn,.who  died  in  the  early  part  of  this  century, 
was  one  of  the  earliest,  some  speak  of  him  as  the  fa- 
ther, of  the  so-called  Higher  Critics.  He  demanded 
for  Christianity  a  historical  basis.  Like  Astruc  he  re- 
jected supernaturalism,  as  has  been  the  tendency  of 
most  of  the  later  critics,  and  attempted  to  explain  the 
miracles  of  the  Bible  on  the  principles  of  naturalism. 


He  referred  much  of  the  credulity  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ers to  superstition,  ghostly  deceptions,  and  Hmited 
intellectual  vision.  He  regarded  some  of  the  epistles 
of  the  New  Testament  as  apocryphal,  and  referred 
the  origin  of  the  Gospels  to  the  first  or  second  cen- 
tury after  Christ,so  denying  their  accepted  authenticity 
and  weakening  their  authority. 

Nearly  half  a  century  later  the-re  arose  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur,  the  originator  of  the  Tubingen  School, 
who  caught  much  of  his  inspiration  as  a  scholar  and 
critic  from  Eichhorn,  and  was  accounted  by  his  con- 
temporaries a  man  of  exceptional  gifts  and  attain- 
ments. Like  Eichhorn  he  denied  miracles.  Assum- 
ing the  impossibility  of  any  departure  from  natural 
law,  he  entered,  only  to  vitiate,  the  whole  field  of  his 
research.  He  created  theological .  distinctions  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  and  of  Peter,  which  were  the  creation 
of  his  own  fertile  brain,  deprecated  the  supernatural 
element  of  both,  and  pronounced  the  religious  zeal  of 
great  leaders  of  religious  thought  simply  the  fervor  of 
speculation  and  the  pride  of  opinion. 

Wellhausen  succeeded  Baur.  He  tells  us  that  he 
voluntarily  left  the  theological  faculty  of  Greifswald 
because  of  his  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  belief  of  the 
evangelical  Church  and  with  Protestantism.  He,  too, 
denies  miracles.  His  premise  perverted  all  his  rea- 
soning and  breaks  his  conclusions.  He  cast  Genesis 
into  his  editorial  waste  basket,  as  incredible  history, 
and  accepted  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  compila- 


tion  from  many  sources,  as  varied,  but  less  beautiful, 
than  Joseph's  coat  of  many  colors.  Having  wit- 
nessed the  defeat  of  Baur's  criticism  of  the  New- 
Testament,  he  traversed  the  dimmer  fields  of  the 
Old,  where  many  of  the  figures,  as  he  sees  them,  are 
ghostly,  much  of  the  history  untruthful,  and  the  evi- 
dences of  conflict  among  religious  factions  unmistak- 
able. Wellhausen,  like  Astruc  and  Eichhorn,  will 
have  his  day,  and  his  disciples  on  both  sides  the 
water.  But  like  Astruc  and  Eichhorn,  he  will  carry 
his  theories  to  the  grave.  "The  grass  withereth  and 
the  flower  of  the  grass  passeth  away,  but  the  word  of 
the  Lord  endureth  forever." 

August  Von  Ewald,  a  pupil  of  Eichhorn,  a  native 
of  Gottingen,  and  for  many  years  a  Professor  of 
Theology  in  Tubingen,  a  prolific  writer,  bold  contro- 
versialist, and  a  drastic  critic,  whose  good  qualities 
were  as  conspicuous  as  his  moral  blemishes,  wrought 
with  an  indomitable  energy  in  the  interests  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,  holding  the  composite  character  of 
the  Pentateuch,  extending  its  legislation  over  long 
periods  of  time  ;  making  the  Psaltery  the  production 
of  many  minds,  David  occupying  a  minor  place  ;  set- 
ting aside  many  traditions  concerning  the  history  of 
Israel,  and,  in  his  theological  teachings,  as  destructive 
as  he  was  extravagant. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  speak  at  length  of  later  critics. 
Goethe  said,  "There  are  many  echoes;  few  voices." 
There  is  nothing  new  in  the  criticism  of  Oxford  and 


Andover.  Their  utterances  are  simply  the  reflection 
of  the  schools  of  Gottingen,  Tubingen  and  Halle. 
The  echoes  may  outlive  the  voices,  but  like  them  will 
eventually  die.  The  Higher  Criticism  with  which  we 
are  specially  concerned,  rejects  some  of  the  positions 
of  the  earlier  critics,  but  accords  with  them  in  many 
particulars  and  is  notably  rationalistic. 

Dr.  Brigrgrs,  of  Union  Seminary,  denies  that  he  ac- 
cords  with  extreme  rationalistic  critics.  He  has  ex- 
pressed much  sympathy  with  the  thoroughness  with 
which  Keunen  and  Wellhausen  do  their  work,  but 
condemns  their  hostility  to  a  divine  element  in  the 
Bible.  He  stands,  as  he  tells  us,  "  With  Delitzsch, 
Driver,  Davidson,  Cheyne,  and  many  others  of  that 
school  of  critics  which  recognizes  the  supernatural 
element  in  Holy  Scripture,"  and  he  endeavors  to  rec- 
oncile the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible  with  the  re- 
sults of  modern  science.  Of  the  latter  class  of  critics 
Delitzsch  was  the  most  evangelical,  and  in  his  last 
years  receded  from  some  rationalistic  positions  which 
he  had  tentatively  held.  Driver  may  not  be  styled  a 
rationalist,  but  his  system  is  rationalistic.  His  views 
of  authority,  and  his  eschatology  are  not  scriptural, 
and,  therefore,  are  not  safe. 

Davidson,  following  close  after  DeWette,  whose 
supernaturalism  is  asstheticism,  mutilates  the  Old 
Testament,  and  wholly  discards  or,  at  least  reduces 
to  a  minimum,  the  doctrines  of  inspiration  and  pro- 
phetic foresight,  in  accord  with  a  fundamental  prin- 


ciple  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  Canon  Cheyne, 
with  whom  Professor  Brigg-s  sympathizes,  admitted 
to  be  a  vigorous  thinker,  and  as  familiar  with  Eccle- 
siastical literature  as  he  is  courteous  in  social  life, 
makes  wide  departures  from  the  long-accepted  teach- 
ing of  the  Christian  Church,  and  from  the  most  con- 
sistent and  obvious  interpretation  of  many  portions 
of  the  word  of  God.  Dr.  E.  D.  Morris,  of  Lane  Sem- 
inary, having  reviewed  Cheyne's  work  on  the  Psalms, 
concludes  that  he  and  his  successors  have  left  the  old 
foundations.  "Giving  up,"  he  says,  "inspiration  and 
supernaturalness,  they  must  logically  give  up  other 
statements  and  theories  also,  and  the  Bible  in  their 
hands  and  under  their  treatment  can  become  none 
other  than  human  literature,  destitute  alike  of  devo- 
tional trustworthiness  and  spiritual  power." 

A  rationalistic  tendency  is  evinced  by  nearly  all 
the  higher  critics  of  to-day,  and  they  reflect  many 
of  the  opinions  of  earlier  critics,  who  find  few  or  no 
divine  elements  in  the  Bible,  and  impair  or  reject  es- 
sential principles  of  the  evangelical  system. 

PATRIARCHAL    RECORDS    DISCREDITED. 

The  Higher  Criticism,  as  represented  by  Professor 
Cheyne  of  Oxford,  discredits  the  stories  of  the  patri- 
archal age,  assuming  that  it  was  a  period  of  illiteracy, 
and  the  art  of  writing  being  unknown,  records  could 
not  have  been  contemporaneous  with  events.  Hence 
he  concludes  that  the  biographers  of  Israel's  ances- 


tors  must  have  lived  at  a  time  when  patriarchal  tra- 
ditions were  wholly  unreliable.  They  were  of  such 
value  as  the  early  myths  and  legends  of  Rome,  which 
ordinary  intelligence  now  rejects  as  the  rubbish  of  a 
barbaric  age.  In  the  review  for  August,  1889,  Pro- 
fessor Cheyne  uses  this  remarkable  language  :  "  We 
must  not  permit  the  young  people  after  a  certain  age 
to  suppose  that  you  know,  or  that  any  one  knows,  or 
that  the  writers  of  Genesis  profess  to  know,  anything 
historically  about  the  three  supposed  ancestors  of  the 
Israelites,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob."  Further  on  he 
says:  "I  appeal  to  the  Clergy  of  the  national  Church 
not  to  assert  the  very  opposite  of  critical  truth;  not 
to  treat  Genesis  as  a  collection  of  immensely  ancient 
family  records,  when  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind."  At 
all  this  we  are  amazed.  Then  this  part  of  Genesis, 
with  its  hints  of  a  Messiah,  and  its  simple  yet  lofty 
faith,  contemplating  through  the  perspective  glass  of 
revelation,  Messiah's  reign,  whilst  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  nation,  God's  chosen  depositary 
and  conservator  of  the  true  religion  until  the  Saviour's 
advent — all  this  is  set  aside  as  unhistoric,  mythical; 
stories  to  amuse  infants,  not  to  be  repeated  in  years 
of  discretion. 

Now  observe  that  the  argument  rests  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  art  of  writing  was  unknown  in  the  times 
of  the  Patriarchs,  and  contemporaneous  records  were 
therefore  impossible.  If  this  can  be  disproved,  then 
the  force  of  the  criticism  is  broken.     Can  it  be  dis- 


proved  ?  It  has  been.  The  very  stones  cry  out  against 
so  baseless  and  harmful  a  speculation.  The  Moabite 
stone  bears  witness  to  the  literary  excellence  of  an  age 
which  followed  soon  after  that  of  Abraham,  and  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  the  Patriarch  was  familiar  wuth 
the  culture  of  Babylonia,  and,  had  it  been  necessary, 
was  able  to  write  his  own  biography.  In  the  British 
Museum  are  ancient  records  which  throw  light  into 
that  distant  past,  and  Reginald  Stuart  Poole,  who  has 
the  care  of  the  Antiquities  of  the  Museum,  says  that 
it  was  clearly  established  that  writing  was  known  in 
and  before  the  age  of  Abraham.  Then,  too,  the  stone 
recently  discovered  near  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  in  the 
Kedron  valley,  bears  like  testimony  to  this  well  ac- 
credited fact.  The  scholarly  Sayce  tells  us  that, 
"  Long  before  the  age  of  Abraham  there  were  not 
only  libraries  well  stocked  with  books  on  clay  and 
papyrus,  but  there  were  numerous  readers  also,"  and 
adds  the  significant  reflection  that:  "  If  the  Israelites 
had  been  illiterate,  living  midway  as  they  did  between 
Assyria  and  Egypt,  and  bordering  on  the  highly  civ- 
ilized cities  of  Phoenicia,  it  w^ould  have  been  nothing 
short  of  a  miracle.  That  they  were  not  so,"  he  adds, 
"  has  now  been  put  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil  by  the 
discovery  of  the  Siloam  inscription."  (Sayce  on  an- 
cient monuments,  pp.  ;^S,  39.) 

The  Patriarchal  records  written  on  tablets  or  bricks, 
or  otherwise  preserved;  written  in  the  Accadian,  or 
some  other  tongue    which    preceded    the    Hebrew, 


10 

doubtless  came  into  Abraham's  hands,  and  were  con- 
veyed to  his  son;  and  in  Hke  manner  the  incidents  of 
his  eventful  life  may  have  been  recorded,  preserved 
and  transmitted,  until  Moses  received  and  set  them 
in  the  books  which  bear  his  name. 

The  naturalness,  the  consistency,  and  the  details  of 
the  narratives  forbid  the  theory  that  they  were  writ- 
ten by  uninspired  hands  in  an  age  long  subsequent, 
and  are  therefore  unreliable.  Details  and  their  record 
are  contemporaneous.  They  are  not  knowm  and 
their  record  is  not'  attempted  when  centuries  lie  be- 
tween an  age  and  its  written  history.  The  minute, 
lifelike  records  of  Abraham's  travels,  home  pictures, 
scenes  on  the  plains,  among  his  herds,  beside  his 
tree-shaded  altars,  and  conversations  with  his  house- 
hold, his  neighbors  and  heavenly  visitants,  all  declare 
the  veracity  and  contemporaneous  origin  of  the  sa- 
cred record.  This  was  the  view  of  Josephus,  of  the 
Talmud,  and  of  the  Jews  in  Christ's  day.  To  refer 
these  narratives  and  much  of  the  Pentateuch,  to  the 
Maccabean  age,  is  unwarranted.  The  book  of  Eccle- 
siasticus,  though  not  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  was 
evidently  w  ritten  a  century  before  the  books  of  the 
Maccabees,  and  makes  even  minute  mention  of  the 
Patriarchs,  as  it  does  of  the  major  and  the  so-called 
minor  prophets.  Moreover  Babylonish  tablets  and 
parchments,  and  monuments  along  the  Nile,  now  in- 
terpreted, add  their  confirmation  to  the  internal  evi- 
dence.    These  indisputable  facts  cut  up  by  the  roots 


11 

the  hypothesis  of  the  higher  critics  which  obscures  the 
biographies  of  Israel's  great  progenitors  and  puts  out 
the  stars  of  the  first  magnitude  which  shone  on  the 
plains  of  Mamre — stars  which,  marshalled  by  the  di- 
vine hand,  wrote  on  the  sky  a  prophecy  of  Israel's 
greatness  and  of  Christ's  glorious  coming,  whose  day 
Abraham  saw  and  was  glad. 

A  noted  English  writer,  referring  to  the  external 
proof  furnished  by  the  discoveries  of  the  recent  times, 
insists  that  the  evidence  has  all  gone  one  way.  "Pal- 
estine explorations,  the  disinterring  of  Egyptian  re- 
mains, and  the  opening  out  of  the  ruinous  heaps  of 
Assyria,  Babylonia  and  Persia,  have  spoken  with  con- 
sentient voice.  They  utter  their  joint  testimony  to 
the  historical  character  of  the  Hebrew  writings." 
And  thus  God  in  his  providence  furnishes  the  proofs 
of  the  early  origin,  the  Mosiac  authorship,  and  the 
irrefutable  veracity  of  the  Pentateuch  which  Christ 
referred  to  the  hand  and  age  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver. 

Further,  let  it  be  remarked  that  the  Bible  is  not  a 
book  of  abstract  discussions  or  statements  of  truth. 
It  writes  the  truth  concretely  in  the  life.  When  it 
would  teach  us  what  God  is,  the  object  of  our  search 
walks  in  the  garden,  appears  in  the  theophany  on  the 
plains  of  Mamre,  and  in  the  burning  bush.  When  it 
would  teach  us  the  value  of  faith,  it  writes  the  biog- 
raphy of  Abraham ;  of  patience.  Job ;  of  meekness, 
Moses  ;  of  spotless  holiness,  the  Son  of  Mary.  The 
best  modern  book   on   Christian  philanthropy  is  the 


13 

"  Life  of  John  Howard."  The  best  incentive  to  spirtu- 
ality  in  the  ministry  is  the  memoir  of  McCheyne. 
The  best  stimulus  to  Christian  work  is  found  in  the 
stories  of  Peter  Waldo,  Harlan  Page,  and  Hannah 
More.  The  power  and  attractiveness  of  the  Scrip- 
tures lie  largely  in  the  personal  element  which  is  never 
absent,  and  the  linking  of  human  biography  with  the 
person  and  the  throne  of  God. 

But  the  so-called  Higher  Criticism  is  manifestly 
against  the  Scripture,  since  it  breaks  the  force  and 
authority  of  the  Bible  by  discrediting  much  of  its 
biography,  and  declaring  large  portions  of  its  history 
apocryphal.  It  puts  Job  on  canvas  only — Jonah  jri 
a  myth.  The  stories  of  the  great  fish,  the  withered 
gourd,  the  doomed  city,  are  antiquated  fables.  It 
makes  Daniel  speak  foolishness,  or  even  questions  his 
existence 

Now  one  does  not  need  to  be  an  expert  Critic  in 
order  to  determine  the  value  of  such  Criticism.  With 
the  English  Bible  before  us,  comparing  Scripture  with 
Scripture,  accepting  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  to  the  originality  and  authority  of  the  Old, 
hearkening  to  the  very  words  of  Christ  respecting 
the  law  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  and  recog- 
nizing in  the  Cross  the  interpretation  and  fulfillment 
of  ancient  Scripture,  we  are  prepared  to  form  an  intel- 
ligent judgment  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  much  the 
Higher  Criticism  has  taught.  The  humble  Christian 
who  believes  in  the  supernatural  is  a  safer  critic  than 


13 

he  who  pushes  his  rationalistic  methods  to  the  front, 
and  with  his  preconceptions,  born  of  naturahsm,  goes 
to  the  Bible,  not  to  inquire  respecting  its  claims  to 
supernaturalism,  the  truthfulness  of  its  history,  the 
divine  origin  of  its  prophecies,  the  exercise  of  omnip- 
otence transcending  physical  law,  but  to  eliminate 
from  the  Bible  whatever  opposes  the  critic's  theory, 
and  reduce  Scripture  to  a  minimum,  "rather  than,"  as 
Keunen  expresses  it,  "give  up  a  dearly  bought  scien- 
tific method."  The  Critic's  assumption  of  sacerdotal 
development,  which  is  largely  naturalism,  leads  him 
into  a  labyrinth  of  difficulties  from  which  there  is  no 
escape  but  by  the  door  of  denial,  and  his  argument 
in  the  interests  of  negative  proof  drawn  from  the 
silence  of  Scriptures,  whilst  the  witness  of  Christ  and 
His  apostles  is  refused,  has  constrained  some  devout 
critics  to  halt,  and  then  to  pronounce  the  whole  system 
a  fraud,  and  such  a  scholar  as  Delitzsch  to  say,  "Now 
I  am  separated  from  Wellhausen  by  an  impassable 
gulf." 

The  scientific  method  does  not  always  prove  the 
system  a  science.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  which 
much  good  may  be  said,  does  not  at  this  stage  of  de- 
velopment, deserve  the  name.  If  disagreement 
among  its  friends,  assumptions  largely  or  purely  hy- 
pothetical, and  conclusions  based  on  unreliable  prem- 
ises, are  inconsistent  with  such  a  designation,  then  this 
modern  criticism  must  be  denied  a  place  among  ma- 
tured sciences,  and  it  ill  becomes  its  advocates  to  con- 


14 

demn  those  who  reject  or  hesitate  to  accept  its  find- 
ings, or  to  arrogate  to  themselves  that  wisdom  which 
they  claim  is  veiled  to  others  by  prejudice  or  stupidity. 

VARIATIONS    OP^    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

The  hypothesis  of  these  higher  critics  has  in  many 
instances  been  a  variable  as  well  as  a  vanishing  quan- 
tity. Respecting  the  Psalter,  Wellhausen  has  repeat- 
edly shifted  his  ground.  At  one  time  he  claimed 
that  David  wrote  at  least  fifty  psalms,  and  that  none 
of  them  were  written  after,  and  few  of  them  so  late 
as,  Nehemiah.  Again  he  intimates  a  sympathy  with 
the  critics  who  regard  the  larger  part  of  the  psaltry 
Post-Exilean.  It  was  not  many  years  since  Ewald 
said  it  was  preposterous  to  refer  the  Psalms  to  the 
Maccabean  age.  Prof.  Margoliouth,  of  Oxford,  not 
long  ago  delivered  an  address  in  which  he  pushed 
back  the  Post-Exilean  books  of  certain  Higher  Critics 
to  a  period  much  earlier,  and  by  his  location  of  the 
book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  written,  as  he  claims,  in  the 
Rabbinical  Hebrew  of  Ben-Sira,  which  was  in  use  two 
centuries  earlier  than  is  generally  supposed,  precedes 
by  this  long  period  both  the  ancient  and  middle  He- 
brew, and  so  disarranges,  all  along  the  line,  the  chro- 
nology of  other  critics,  and  relieves  serious  questions 
concerning  the  earlier  books  of  the  Bible:  The  Critics 
are  not  agreed  among  themselves.  Shall  the  Script- 
ure and  the  creeds  of  Christendom  go  down  before 
teachers  so  fallible  as  these  ?     Nay,  verily. 


15 

In  view  of  the  variations  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
one  school  resisting  another,  and  both  shifting  their 
grounds,  yielding  their  positions  to  the  force  o'f  irref- 
utable logic,  the  consensus  of  Christian  conscious- 
ness and  the  testimony  of  ages  chiseled  in  stones,  we 
do  well  to  withhold  our  credence  from  any  modern 
critic  who  simply  revives  the  ancient  copy,  and  we 
are  bound  to  discourage  the  publication  of  hypoth- 
eses which  are  only  old  enemies  arrayed  in  new 
clothes. 

The  inductive  method  may  cloud  the  faith  of 
Christ's  humble  ones,  break  their  comfort  in  trouble, 
and  obscure  their  hope  of  Heaven.  It  may  also  dis- 
sipate thoughtfulness,  engender  disbelief,  and  shut 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  the  unregenerate,  on 
whose  souls  the  spirit  of  God  is  moving.  When  de- 
voutly pursued  it  shall  have  reached  its  fulness,  it 
will  sustain  the  Scripture,  and,  as  it  relates  to  a  holy 
faith,  will  nourish  it.  But  we  shrink  from  it  when, 
its  findings  immature,  it  touches  the  greater  than 
hemisphere  of  religious  experience. 

The  appendix  to  an  American  book  contains  the 
names  of  the  Higher  Critics  of  to-day.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  sixty  per  cent,  of  these  are  German 
scholars,  and  of  the  remaining  forty  per  cent,  the 
most  of  them,  at  some  period,  have  been  students  in 
the  schools  of  Germany.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  we  shall  accept  the  present  results  of  Old  World 
thought  which  for  over  a  century  has  been  marching 


16 

and  counter-marching  on  tlie  battle  grounds  of  the 
Reformation.  Whilst  we  recognize  the  scholarship 
of  Germany,  and  the  general  thoroughness  of  its  in- 
stitutions of  learning,  yet  we  do  not  wish  to  go  to 
that  mystic  land  for  our  theology,  nor  do  we  propose 
to  adopt  theories  which  have  broken  down  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible  and  well-nigh  destroyed  spir- 
itual life  in  the  land  of  Luther.  The  devouter 
scholarship  of  Great  Britain  and  America  is  a  safer 
guide  to  our  inquiries  and  a  better  support  of  our 
faith  than  that  of  Holland  or  Germany;  the  scholar- 
ship of  countries  that  lie  under  the  clear  shining  of 
gospel  truth  than  of  those  which  are  obscured  by  the 
clouds  of  unbelief  and  darkened  by  habits  of  life 
which  impair  the  human  understanding  and  pervert 
the  judgment. 

RESULTS    OF    HIGHER    CRITICISM    HOW    DETERMINED. 

The  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism  will  vary  with 
the  spirit  in  which  it  is  pursued,  and  the  attitude  as- 
sumed to  the  Scripture.  Some  devout  and  conscien- 
tious critics,  whose  education  and  habits  of  thought 
have  favored  conservative  inquiries,  find  abundant 
support  of  long  accepted  views  as  to  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures.  Others  enter  on 
this  investigation  in  a  skeptical  state  of  mind,  taking 
nothing  for  granted  until  it  is  proven,  and  are  con- 
trolled perhaps  by  a  disposition  to  get  away  from 
traditional  views  and   do^j^iiiatic  statements,  and  in- 


fluenced  by  the  distinguished  scholarship  which  has 
arrayed  itself  against  prevailing  faiths. 

There  are  other  critics  who  come  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  with  opinions  already  formed, 
and  all  their  findings  are  bent  into  the  support  of  their 
preconceptions.  They  burn  down  the  barriers  that 
cross  their  paths,  and  go  straight  to  their  foregone 
conclusions  instead,  as  the  Christian  Premier  of  Eng- 
land expresses  it,  of  taking  their  chances  of  reaching 
it  by  the  common  road  of  reason.  It  often  occurs 
that  this  class  of  critics  furnish  the  most  striking 
examples  of  discarded  intelligence,  and  most  peremp- 
torily demand  submission  to  their  unwarranted  opin- 
ions. 

Then  many,  seeking  to  remove  the  supernatural 
element  from  the  Bible,  and  bring  it  down  to  a  purely 
human  level,  are  embarrassed  by  the  appearance  of 
prophecy  which,  if  its  existence  is  admitted,  deter- 
mines the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  and  they 
have  introduced  the  post-exilian  chronology  of  cer- 
tain books,  or  some  date  so  recent  as  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  prophecy  by  making  the  event  a  fact  of 
history  when  the  books  were  written.  It  matters  not 
that  this  hypothesis  sweeps  a  wide  field,  and  robs 
other  elements  of  revelation  of  their  preciousness  and 
power.  Whatever  crosses  the  track  of  the  cherished 
hypothesis  must  go  down  before  its  imperial  march, 
that  the  "  idol  of  the  market  place  "  may  be  enthroned. 
Some  think  that  the   age,  texts,  and   authorship  of 


18 

books,  may  not  be  vital  questions,  and  that  we  may- 
yield  them  without  impairing  the  foundations  of  our 
faith.  But  when  destructive  critics,  with  their  battle- 
axes,  smite  down  both  prophecy  and  miracle,  so  that 
they  bear  no  testimony  to  the  truth,  and  humble  the 
cross  to  the  grade  of  human  reason,  we  refuse  to  keep 
them  company. 

Here  let  it  be  premised,  that  whilst  most  of  the 
Higher  Critics  tend  to  rationalism,  there  are  others 
who  are  unswerving  in  their  belief  in  and  support  of 
the  evangelical  system.  The  latter  cannot,  as  terms 
are  now  employed,  be  counted  with  the  Higher  Crit- 
ics. They  do  not  investigate  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  Scriptures  with  a  view  to  disprove 
either,  but  to  present  an  antidote  to  the  results  of  the 
destructive  methods.  Hence,  when  we  speak  of  the 
Hiorher  Criticism  we  have  in  mind  the  extreme,  ra- 
tionalistic  wing,  with  such  scholars  at  its  head  as 
Keunen  and  Wellhausen,  and  following  them,  in  ir- 
regular order,  such  writers  as  Driver,  Cheyne,  and 
Gore,  and  those  who  accord  with  them  in  our  own 
country. 

Pursuing  the  inductive  method,  some  of  the  Higher 
Critics  tell  us  that  the  sacerdotal  laws,  so  conspicu- 
ous in  the  intermediate  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  are  in 
no  sense  or  measure  Mosaic,  but  were  a  development, 
originating  after  Moses,  matured  after  the  exile,  and 
accepted  as  a  perfect  ritual  less  than  five  hundred 
years  before  Christ. 


19 

They  reg-ard  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs  as  the  drift- 
wood of  legends,  rotting  along  the  beach  of  tradition. 
They  tell  us  that  much  of  Genesis  is  allegorical,  Job 
is  a  dream,  Jonah  an  instructive  parable,  Esther  a 
romance,  Samuel,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Daniel  unre- 
liable history  and  puerile  prophecy  ;  that  the  miracles 
of  the  Exodus  and  of  Canaan  were  the  dreams  of  en- 
thusiasts, or  the  creation  of  superstition,  to  be  classed 
with  ghost  stories  and  the  tales  old  women  tell 
around  the  hearthstone  on  winter  nights.  We  are 
informed  that  the  Tabernacle  was  a  myth,  a  bridge 
which  traditionalists  have  built  out  of  their  own  fer- 
tile imagination,  by  which  they  thought  to  make 
such  a  connection  with  the  Pentateuch  as  would  sus- 
tain its  alleged  antiquity  ;  that  much  of  the  prophecy 
of  the  Old  Testament  predictions  has  been  reversed 
by  history  ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  pre- 
dictions not  only  never  have  been,  but  never  can  be 
fulfilled,  for  the  reason  that  its  own  time  has  passed 
forever ;  and  then  they  cross  the  vacuity  of  half  a 
century  into  the  New  Testament  literature,  eliminate 
entire  passages  from  the  synoptic  Gospels,  question 
or  deny  the  authenticity  of  John,  reject  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter  ,or  weaken  its  authority,  and  pro- 
nounce the  Apocalypse,  largely  at  least,  an  unintelli- 
gible oriental  picture. 

These  critics  are  occupied  with  the  revelations  of 
science,  with  comparative  religions,  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Pagan  world,  the  philosophies  of  the  East,  and 


20 

the  records  of  speculation,  and  claim  to  be  the  repre- 
sentatives of  advanced  thought,  slow  of  heart  to  be- 
lieve what  the  prophets  have  written. 

The  Higher  Criticism  claims  a  monopoly  of  ideas. 
It  tells  us  it  has  crossed  all  the  waves  of  tradition,  es- 
caped the  rocks  of  dogmatism,  and  anchored  in  the 
quiet  haven  of  truth.  But  the  day  of  delusions  is  not 
past.  That  which  resists  the  faith  of  the  ages  ;  that 
rejects  the  tried  stone  of  inspiration  ;  that  discredits 
the  testimony  of  prophets  and  apostles,  and  the  Son 
of  God,  has  a  momentum  downward,  and  that  only. 
It  may  dominate  a  few  decades;  the  time  that  ideas 
live — that  die.  What  we  need  and  what  what  we 
contend  for  to-day,  are  ideas  born  of  God,  written  in 
His  Word,  believed  on  by  the  generations,  tested  by 
Christian  consciousness,  conquering  individuals  and 
states,  giving  us  such  men  as  David  and  Isaiah,  Paul 
and  John,  Luther  and  Knox,  Henry  Martyn  and  Ad- 
oniram  Judson,  and  raising  the  nations  that  accept 
them  to  the  pinnacles  of  spiritual  power. 

That  is  not  truth  which  does  not  enrich  and  elevate 
the  soul.  All  literature  is  valueless  which  does  not 
civilize  a  people,  leading  them  up  to  higher  thoughts 
and  grander  resolves  and  nobler  deeds  ;  so  are  all  re- 
liofious  theories  which  do  not  lift  men  Godward  and 
heavenward,  bringing  them  out  of  the  mists  of  agnos- 
ticism, and  away  from  the  flickering  lights  of  ration- 
alism, into  the  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  God,  and 
the  freedom  of  the  truth. 


21 

Skepticism  is  not  an  absolute,  invariable  evil. 
Much  depends  on  its  subject.  It  is  right  to  be  skepti- 
cal about  spiritualism,  hypnotism,  theosophy,  higher 
criticism,  and  all  necromancy.  It  is  right  to  be  skepti- 
cal when  occupied  with  natural  sciences,  and  evidence 
must  be  strong  in  order  to  settle  our  opinions  respect- 
ing natural  laws  and  their  results.  Skepticism  has 
also  its  field  in  religious  science.  But  this  attitude  of 
mind  may  become  unhealthy,  and  when  it  touches 
questions  which  relate  to  inspiration,  and  to  the  gen- 
uineness and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures,  it  may 
throw  up  barriers  of  prejudice,  pride  of  intellect, 
boast  of  scholarship,  professional  rivalry,  or  an  am- 
bition for  notoriety,  easily  attained  by  some  revolu- 
tionary hypothesis,  then  skepticism  may  prove  a  se- 
rious opponent  of  truth.  The  methods  of  science 
under  the  control  of  skepticism  may  be  made  to  over- 
ride the  teachings  of  revelation,  to  set  aside  the  testi- 
mony of  universal  consciousness,  to  destroy  what  fits 
into  and  fills  spiritual  need,  secures  a  holy  quiet  of 
soul,  and  supports  every  effort  to  advance  the  good 
of  men,  and  the  glory  of  God. 

There  are  skeptical  Bible  critics,  possessed  of  gen- 
ius, culture  and  piety,  who  are  so  dominated  by 
habits  of  disbelief  that  they  continually  clash  with 
the  faith  of  Christendom,  and  persist  in  destructive 
speculations  which  threaten  the  very  foundations  of  a 
reasonable  and  satisfying  religious  belief.     It  is  right 


22 

to  resist  their  methods  and  the  conclusions  to  which 
they  have  come. 

CLAIM    TO    PROGRESSIVENESS. 

Higher  Critics  of  the  Rationalistic  School  Insist  on 
an  advanced  theology.  They  would  leave  the  dead 
past  and  turn  to  a  better  future.  But  progress  may 
be  from,  and  not  along  the  line  of,  truth.  It  may  be 
shunted  off  on  the  wrong  track  and  end  in  demolition. 
It  is  a  significant  fact  that  great  ideas  have  their  roots 
in  the  past,  and  whatever  touches  the  religious  life  is 
an  ancient  and  universal  conviction.  The  belief  that 
salvation  is  through  sacrifice  is  as  old  as  the  fallen 
race.  The  flash  of  the  Cherubim's  sword  reveals  its 
cradle.  And  in  all  ages  and  in  every  land  where  the 
light  of  Hebrew  altars  had  never  shone,  men  are  bus- 
ied with  blood-shedding,  putting  life  between  their 
conscious  guilt  and  the  offended  divinities.  We  are 
not  ashamed  to  be  styled  traditionalists  in  a  God- 
given  religion. 

Our  God,  who  has  no  past,  no  future,  but  dwells 
in  the  eternal  present,  gave  us  truth  in  its  germ  at 
the  beginning,  and  laid  Jesus  down,  wrapped  in 
swaddling  bands,  just  outside  the  gate  of  Eden.  The 
growth  has  been  that  of  the  great  original.  And  al- 
though truth  in  our  day  is  better  known,  enlarging 
the  spiritual  vision,  pushing  on  the  horizon,  perfect- 
ing the  soul,  marshalling  a  sacramental  host  and  mak- 
ing ready  for  the  glorious  epiphany  predicted  by  the 


23 

first  promise,  the  first  advent  and  the  angels'  song", 
yet  Gospel  truth  is  in  its  essence  changeless  as  g«ravi- 
tation,  as  old  as  life  and  love,  as  joy  and  sorrow,  as 
conscious  need  and  the  blessed  hope. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  great  changes  are  going 
on  in  the  world  of  theological  thought.  In  many 
parts  of  Christendom  Augustine  and  Calvin  and  Ed- 
wards and  the  Wesleys  are  losing  their  control  over 
the  beliefs  of  men.  Old  theories  are  dismissed  and 
new  hypotheses  claim  the  vacant  seats.  Doctrines 
that  were  drawn  straight  from  the  Word  of  God  are 
referred  to  superstition  or  mental  imbecility.  The 
once-accepted  facts  of  divine  justice,  a  general  judg- 
ment, and  eternal  retribution,  which  sent  the  ministry 
to  their  knees  in  wrestling  prayer,  and  to  their  pulpits 
with  holy  trembling,  and  made  the  issues  of  an  hour 
solemn  as  the  eternity  on  whose  margin  it  lay,  are 
giving  place  to  another  gospel,  and  a  deceptive  hope. 
Now,  in  the  thought  of  many,  the  love  of  God  ex- 
trudes his  justice.  The  gates  of  life  are  wide  as  the 
earth,  and  mercy  announces  the  ultimate  salvation 
of  the  race.  All  this  has  been  accomplished  by  new 
theories  of  inspiration,  which  emasculated  the  old,  by 
interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  which  exaggerate 
the  divine  clemency,  by  rationalistic  speculations  in- 
dependent of  revelation,  and  by  modern  methods  of 
Biblical  Criticism,  which  from  the  beginning  have 
tended  to  denial  of  truth,  or  to  a  corruption  of  it,  in- 
consistent with  a  holy  fear,  sincere  repentance  and  a 


24 

lifelong  clinging  to  the  person  and  cross  of  Christ. 
We  may  all  believe  in  the  infinitude  of  God's  love, 
and  we  may  discover  in  modern  exegesis  some  help- 
ful corrections  of  a  too  sombre  faith;  but  God  forbid 
that  we  should  so  weaken  the  authority,  and  misin- 
terpret the  teaching,  and  depreciate  the  inspiration  of 
his  word,  that  grace  shall  turn  to  lasciviousness,  truth 
to  deception,  and  an  ignis  fatuus  conduct  to  an  end- 
less niofht.  This  is  an  evolution  which  has  no  war- 
rant  in  the  Scriptures.  It  does  not  w^iden  the  horizon 
of  truth,  but  narrows  it;  does  not  quicken  the  con- 
science, but  stupefies  it;  does  not  build  up  character, 
but  prostrates  it;  does  not  lead  to  Christ,  but  away 
from  him;  does  not  bring  in  a  better  hope  and  ex- 
pand the  arithmetic  of  Heaven,  but  extinguishes  the 
possibilities  of  salvation,  and  reduces  to  a  minimum 
the  number  of  the  redeemed.  Christ  announces  him- 
self the  only  way  to  God,  and  his  test  of  all  teaching 
continues,  "  A  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits." 

WHAT  SHALL  BE  DONE  WITH  THE   BIBLE  ? 

Now  the  question  is  raised.  What  will  you  do  with 
your  Bible  ?  Dr.  Briggs's  Inaugural  tells  us  that  tradi- 
tionalism is  doomed.  Old  theories  are  going  down  be- 
fore new  hypotheses,  as  snow-banks  before  an  April 
sun.  What  will  you  do  ?  Many  of  us  say  we  will 
keep  our  Bible  intact.  We  will  thrust  back  the  axes 
that  would  girdle  the  tree  which  sheltered  us,  and  in 
whose  shadow  our  fathers  sat.     We  will  search,  and 


25 

believe,  and,  through  grace,  obey  the  Scriptures  our 
Lord  accepted,  and  the  later  books  his  apostles  wrote, 
the  only  infallible  guide  from  this  world  to  that  which 
is  to  come. 

Christ  honored  and  loved  the  Bible  of  his  day.  It 
is  true  he  condemned  the  Jewish  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  glosses  they  put  on  the  testimony 
of  the  prophets,  the  interlineations  of  tradition,  and 
the  interpolations  of  ecclesiasticism,  but  he  magnified 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  They  were  the  armory 
whence  he  drew  the  weapons  with  which  to  repel  the 
tempting  Satan  ;  they  were  the  word  of  life  from 
which  he  gathered  refulgent  rays  of  truth  as  a  halo 
of  glory  about  his  own  person  and  mission,  the  pen- 
ciled dawn  of  a  Gospel  day,  and  even  "  His  beatitudes," 
as  has  been  well  said,  "  were  Old  Testament  bells 
grouped  into  a  sweet  chime." 

We  are  aware  that  some  hold  there  were  thinofs 
concealed  from  Christ.  It  has  even  been  profanely 
alleged  that  Christ  knew  no  more  about  the  genuine- 
ness and  authenticity  of  the  Old  Testament  than  any 
simple-minded  Galilean.  Some  of  Dr.  Briggs's  state- 
ments in  his  Inaugural  rest  on  this  assumption.  The 
Kenosis  which  they  contend  for  empties  hi  m  of  his  know- 
ledge, and  he  must  needs  grope  on  through  shadow  and 
twilight  into  the  full  day  of  truth.  He  thought  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch,  or  stood  in  some  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  it  such  as  made  it  his  ;  he  did  not  know.  He 
was  a  traditionalist,  not  a  scholar  ;  an  Evangelist,  not 


26 

a  Professor  in  Gamaliel's  University  ;  none  had  taught 
him  letters.  Ezra  equivocated  and  Christ  was  deceived. 

Our  Lord  accepted  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  as  it  was  held  in  his  time,  as  it  had 
been  held  in  ours.  He  was  honest  but  not  informed. 
Were  he  to  appear  in  our  day,  and  graduate  at  some 
of  our  schools,  he  would  be  one  of  the  higher  critics. 
That  is  not  our  Christ,  in  whom  all  fulness  dwells. 
He  knew  the  Father  as  he  knew  himself.  He  knew 
the  hearts,  read  the  thoughts,  interpreted  the  lives  of 
men,  was  familiar  with  all  the  past  and  forecasted 
all  the  ages  to  come.  The  testimony  of  Peter  is 
familiar,  "  Thou  knowest  all  things,"  and  that  of  Paul, 
"  In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily." 

But  many  go  with  the  destructive  critics.  Brilliant 
intellect  blinds  their  eyes ;  scholarship  commands 
their  deference  ;  the  fear  of  being  accounted  un- 
learned urges  them  on.  The  darkening  shadow  of 
Oxford  reaches  across  England.  The  church  spires 
of  London  are  obscured  by  it.  The  new  world  wit- 
nesses its  approach.  Shall  the  light  of  truth  fade  out 
and  its  power  become  a  sad  recession  ? 

Then  there  are  others,  occupying  an  intermediate 
position,  who  say  there  is  some  truth  in  the  Higher 
Criticism.  Traditionalists  have  held  errors  which 
Critics  displace  by  their  investigations.  Authenticity 
may  not  in  every  instance  be  clearly  established. 
Transmission  has  introduced  a  few  foreign  elements 


27 

into  the   Bible.     Hence  we  must   shift  our  ground. 
And  yet  we  can  and  shall  preserve  the  truth. 

But  if  we  yield  in  a  few  instances  the  claim  of  au- 
thenticity, and  eliminate  some  supposed  interpola- 
tions, and  correct  certain  apparent  mistakes  in  num- 
bers and  names,  yet  there  are  some  things  we  cannot, 
some  things  we  will  not,  surrender.  We  cannot  re- 
move the  keystone  of  plenary  inspiration  and  thereby 
destroy  the  whole.  We  cannot  make  the  Levitical  law, 
large  portions  of  prophecy,  and  most  of  the  Psalter, 
Post-exilic,  preferring  the  testimony  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  to  that  of  the  Son  of  God.  We  cannot  pro- 
nounce the  lives  of  Patriarchs  apocryphal, whole  books 
eastern  allegories,  long-accepted  prophecies,  vagaries, 
and  Christ's  miracles,  myths.  We  cannot  waive  su- 
pernaturalism  out  of  history,  out  of  experience,  out  of 
the  world  ;  nor  can  we  maintain  it  within  a  limited 
area  and  repeatedly  deny  it  a  place  in  sacred  records. 
We  cannot  reconstruct  the  Kenosis,  pronounce  Christ 
ignorant  of  essential  facts,  or  throw  the  slightest 
shadow  on  his  veracity,  either  as  related  to  the  sacred 
Canon,  the  office  of  Moses,  or  the  truthfulness  of  the 
eschatology  which  sets  Heaven  and  Hell  on  the  hor- 
izon of  an  eternal  future. 

PERILS    OF    THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

There  is  evidently  alarming  peril  in  recent  criticism. 
Modern  cultus  carries  the  bacilli  of  a  moral  collapse. 
Here  cautious  conservatism  is  better  than  hasty  crit- 


28 

icism,  and  the  Bible  than  all  uncertain  hypotheses 
combined,  though  they  carry  the  stamp  of  acknowl- 
edged scholarship,  and  names  we  revere  and  love. 
The  old  London  bridge  is  safer  than  the  modern 
structure  that  once  spanned  the  Tay  ;  the  plodding 
stage-coach  than  the  aeronaut's  balloon ;  the  Bible 
than  any  new  theology,  and  Elisha,  who  left  the 
plow  that  he  might  be  the  Lord's  prophet,  is  a  more 
trustworthy  teacher  than  Kuenen  or  any  of  his  dis- 
ciples on  either  side  the  Atlantic. 

All  Rationalists  do  not  deny  the  possibility  of  a 
divine  revelation,  nor  that  such  a  revelation  has  been 
given.  But  the  average  Rationalist,  according  to 
Mansel,  claims  for  himself  and  his  age  "the  privilege 
of  accepting  or  rejecting  any  given  revelation,  wholly 
or  in  part,  according  as  it  does  or  does  not  satisfy  the 
conditions  of  some  higher  criterion  to  be  supplied  by 
the  human  consciousness."  He  is  a  higher  critic.  It 
is  his  mission  to  destroy  Bibliolatry;  to  discover  mis- 
takes in  the  Bible,  to  deprecate  its  prophecies,  to  ob- 
scure the  divine  element  in  it,  and  exalt  the  human. 
The  tendency  of  Rationalism  all  along  the  past  has 
been  to  minimize  the  doctrines  of  revelation  and  sub- 
ject them  to  the  "Chemistry  of  thought."  The  re- 
siduum has  been  a  system  of  faith  less  comprehensive 
than  the  Nicene  formula,  and  even  a  contradiction 
of  the  apostles'  creed.  This  is  human  ventriloquism 
drowning  the  voice  of  God. 

The  trend  of  thought  in  the  present  age  is  evidently 


2 'J 

toward  the  same  result.  If  dogmatism  is  in  danger 
of  adding  human  deductions  to  scriptural  doctrines, 
rationalism  is  largely  destructive  and  far  more  dan- 
gerous. It  burns  down  so-called  barriers,  and  enters 
the  very  citadel  of  truth,  only  to  profane  and  over- 
turn its  altars,  substituting  human  speculations  for  a 
divine  revelation.  It  subjects  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  test  of  reason,  or  of  the  spirit  within  us; 
to  the  authority  enthroned  in  our  own  souls,  more  re- 
liable than  the  authority  which  is  outward,  though  it 
be  the  very  voice  of  God.  It  may  find  the  word  of 
God  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  And  having  elimi- 
nated what  it  calls  "  degraded  types,"  "  superstitious 
imaginings,"  and  "oriental  dreams,"  professes  great 
reverence  for  what  remains,  whilst  the  vanishing 
quantity  which  is  left,  taken  out  of  its  proper  rela- 
tions, and  reduced  as  to  its  true  proportions,  becomes 
practical  error,  and  severs  the  nerves  of  a  holy  faith 
which  would  sit  at  God's  feet,  and  with  its  soul  vis- 
ion contemplate  eternal  verities. 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  only  a  modified  rationalism, 
and  its  results  condemn  it.  Criticism  has  its  office. 
To  deny  this  were  folly;  to  reject  all  its  results  were 
an  offence  to  the  truth.  But  the  criticism  we  accept 
and  support  is  a  reverential  criticism:  a  criticism  that 
takes  the  attitude  of  discipleship  rather  than  that  of 
of  a  judge,  that  admits  that  there  are  i.iysteries  in 
religion,  that  there  are  heights  and  depths  that  have 
not  been  explored  and  will  require  eternity  to  dis- 


30 

cover;  a  criticism  that  has  excluded  the  Apocrypha 
from  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture;  that  has  removed 
some  glosses  from  the  legislation  of  the  Bible;  inter- 
preted things  that  had  been  obscure;  made  clearer 
what  was  made  known  in  part;  and  helped  us  to 
greater  accuracy  in  determining  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit.  The  more  of  such  criticism  we  have,  the  bet- 
ter. We  have  no  fear  of  its  conclusions.  But  the 
fruits  of  that  irreverent,  self-reliant,  destructive  criti- 
cism which  is  rationalistic,  are  evil  only,  and  that  con- 
tinually. 

The  Evangelical  Christianity  of  the  early,  church 
was  corrupted  by  the  Ritualism  of  later  centuries,  and 
this  in  its  turn  was  succeeded  by  Rationalism.  These 
three  have  co-existed  in  every  age.  They  co-exist  to- 
day. But  when  a  rationalistic  criticism  has  been  in 
the  ascendant,  evangelism  has  lost  its  power.  If  the 
Oxford  tracts  supported  Ritualism  and  led  to  Rome, 
the  Old  Tubingen  school  broke  the  spiritual  power  of 
England,  and  made  necessary  the  evangelical  White- 
field  and  the  Wesleys.  The  later  Tubingen  philosophy, 
with  Baur  at  its  head,  and  Strauss  at  its  feet,  esmacu- 
lated  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation  on  the  Conti- 
nent, and  spiritual  life  has  well-nigh  departed  from  the 
lands  of  Luther,  Zwingle  and  Calvin.  The  authority  of 
the  Bible  is  accepted  by  few.  Evangelical  religion  is 
sent  to  the  rear.  The  Sabbath  holds  a  feeble  place 
in  the  calendar  of  the  year,  and  churches  once 
crowded  with  worshipers  are  frequented  by  a  dispir- 


31 

ited  few.  In  Eisenach  with  its  23,000  souls,  where 
for  a  time  we  sojourned,  the  old  Wartburg  Castle  in 
which  Luther  translated  the  Bible  looking  down,  only 
two  or  three  per  cent,  of  the  population  ever  go  to 
church,  except  on  some  national  fete  day,  or  to  wit- 
ness pompous,  undevout  services  on  Christmas  or 
Easter.  It  is  because  Evangelism  in  Great  Britain, 
though  resisted,  holds  its  ground  against  Ritualism  by 
a  hard,  inceasing  struggle,  that  the  Lord's  day  is 
sanctified,  and  places  of  worship  are  filled,  and  God 
is  feared  and  loved  by  multitudes  from  the  straits  of 
Dover  to  the  Pentland  Hills.  But  the  signs  of  the 
times  are  beginning  to  be  ominous  on  that  side  the 
water,  as  they  are  on  ours.  We  have  every  reason  to 
fear  that  if  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  should  be 
seriously  impaired  or  wholly  broken;  if  systems  of 
religion  which  deny  an  incarnated  God  and  a 
vicarious  atonement,  and  a  future  retribution, 
should  be  lifted  to  a  level  with  Evangelical 
Christianity,  and  if  Martineau  be  ranked  as  a  Chris- 
tian, with  Spurgeon,  the  one  taking  off  Christ's 
kingly  crown,  the  other  restoring  it;  the  one  tramp- 
ling on  the  cross,  the  other  bearing  it  aloft ;  the  one 
accounting  in  it  a  symbol  of  shame,  the  other  refusing 
to  glory  in  anything  else ;  the  one  casting  out  the 
very  heart  of  a  saving  faith,  the  other  holding  all 
truth  on  the  borders  of  heaven  or  hell,  to  one  of  which 
all  are  swiftly  going,  then  it  will  not  be  long  until 
spiritual  power  will  depart  from  America,  as  it  has 


32 

departed  from  the  Continent  of  Europe,  raising-  the 
inquiry,  "  When  the  Son  of  man  cometh  shall  he  find 
faith  on  the  earth  ?"  Rationalistic  criticism  burns  and 
blasts  whatever  it  touches.  It  breaks,  in  the  regard 
of  all  who  accept  its  conclusions,  faith  in  the  truthful- 
ness, necessity  and  authority  of  the  sacred  Scripture. 
Shall  we  accept  some  new,  subversive  theory,  and  re- 
lax our  grasp  on  truth  older  than  the  pyramids, 
tested  and  believed  in  by  every  age  since  Abel 
reared  his  altar?  Shall  we  surrender  our  position 
on  the  rock  of  inspiration  whose  summit  lies  "  be- 
neath the  storm  mark  of  the  sky  and  above  the  flood 
mark  of  the  deep,"  from  which,  with  a  joyful  trust  in 
the  promises  it  has  written,  and  supported  by  the 
hopes  which  it  has  inspired,  our  fathers  and  mothers, 
with  their  hands  on  our  heads,  and  benedictions  on 
their  lips,  went  home  to  God,  asking  us  to  meet  them 
in  heaven  ?  Surely  we  cannot  commit  an  offence  so 
destructive  to  our  peace  and  to  all  we  have  esteemed 
above  life  itself. 

Let  us  plant  our  faith  on  the  Scripture,  as  God 
gave  it  and  by  His  watchful  providence  has  pre- 
served to  our  day,  saying  with  Martin  Luther  at  the 
Diet  of  Worms,  "  Here  I  stand  ;  I  can  do  nothing  else; 
so  help  me  God.  Amen."  And  may  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  moved  by  a  regard  for  the  truth,  the 
salvation  of  the  lost  and  the  comfort  of  saints  passing 
through  tribulation,  protect  from  stain  and  mutilation 
the  Bible,  concerning  which  some  one  has  said  that  it 


33 

is  "  Older  than  the  fathers,  truer  than  tradition,  more 
learned  than  universities,  more  authoritative  than 
councils,  more  infallible  than  popes,  more  orthodox 
than  creeds,  more  powerful  than  ceremonies ;  the 
Omnipotent  Word  of  God,  the  wonder  of  the  world, 
the  precious  boon  of  heaven." 


Date  Due 

-  'lyjf, 

0  13-*43 

• 

nil!  T , 

AN 

'•  r 

.  ■»    ^-  "      •'-.•" 

.A;Lt>f 

(|) 

.i:.:^'ii: 


